Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Election fraud people, that is why Ron Paul did not win:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ot_counted.htm

This is huge!!!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

And about Primaries. Each state party has a system for determining who the candidates for National office will be. In many states, that's done by a "primary election" which is a vote. In a "closed primary" only registered members of the party can vote, in an 'open primary" anyone (more or less) can. The rules are set by the state party, and must conform to some basic guidelines set by the rules of the national party. They are internal to the political parties, and not related to the laws of voting as set by the actual government. Greens have their own system, other small parties have theirs, as well. So, when we're reporting news on the 'primaries', remember, we're polling (essentially) what is known as 'likely voters" (registered, etc.) as to who they'd like to support. Delegates are apportioned by population, like congressional seats. The challenge, these days, is to get through the primaries (which means appealling to the core supporters of the party) without doing something that will alienate the middle voter, who isn't usually a regular voter or party loyalist, but shows up during presidential elections. It's tricky. Huckabee's a great example of that, because he mobilizes the Christian Right, but that may scare off the more moderate voter.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Election fraud people, that is why Ron Paul did not win:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ot_counted.htm

...and I won't stop.

This is huge!!!!!!!!!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I read the article. If they are willing to charge the election with fraud, they should file.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You're not being sarcastic?

Not at all. I liked it.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I actually think one of the best things we can do is keep building hospitals, schools etc there, and maybe even pay some super high-wages for doctors to go there.

I'd rather see us spending that huge amount of money at home, or even not spending it at all.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well I think we intended that with Afghanistand and Iraq. That was Rumseld's policy, essentially, without the troop flooding of Colin Powell.

Not exactly. Rumsfeld went small, but had no intentions of getting the job done and then pulling out. That was what we should have done in Afghanistan. Iraq, we should have just continued containment, and not invaded at all. If any real WMDs cropped up, air strikes could take care of it.

And, if you think bigger picture, something like limited airstrikes would be a lot more palitable on a country like Iran, if needed, if we did not have so many American troops right next door. We are much more limited in what we can do now because so many of our troops are in harm's way that were not before.

On Vietnam, we won all the battles, but even with a half a million troops, we couldn't change the fact that much of the populace was against foreign occupation. And, the biggest issue, much like Iraq, is that the fears which brought us into it in the first place were totally unfounded.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I read the article. If they are willing to charge the election with fraud, they should file.

They are talking about that right now. It would cause alot of things to be revealed about the electronic voting machines (without a paper trail) and the level of corruption in the last 2 presidential elections. It's all being revealed at last. Hahahahahahaaaaaa!!!

This is the original article!!

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Election fraud people, that is why Ron Paul did not win:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ot_counted.htm

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lady Ravyn

*sigh* it's gonna suck when i have to resign myself to backing romney (aka hector)

You still think I'm Romney? I guess that would account for my strong dislike of McCain then. Yeah, I lost. I won't lose Michigan though.

[hectorberlioz]

Last night I was trying to come up with a really good excuse as to why Romney could still go on after his NH loss....and I came up with this analogy.

Most everyone here has probably played Mario Kart on the Gamecube, and understand that even if you get 2nd Place in each level, you can still win 1st place if you the other guys each get 1st in every level, thus keeping a very tight race, but one in which a steadfast second place can put you on top.

So, let's play Flower Cup, level 1: Iowa


Historically, according to the pundits, Iowa does not choose the winner. But it does narrow the field.
Huckabee got the gold, and Romney got the Silver, and McCain (because he and Thompson were so close anyways) got Third.

Huckabee+10 points
Romney+8 points
McCain+6 points

Ok, so Romney gets silver. Now for an easy level (Wyoming), where he wins first.

10 points. And neither Huckabee nor McCain gets any, but nobody cares anyways. Dick Cheney is from Wyoming.

Now for a tough fight in New Hampshire, where McCain has done well in the past. Romney will also do well because he's been campaigning there, he governed next door etc...

So when things are finished,
McCain gets 10
Romney gets 8
Huckabee gets 6

So far, Romney has kept his place of relevancy...he hasn't plummeted, and next Tuesday he'll be duking it out once again with McCain.

[hectorberlioz]

By the way, I think this is relevant for most of the campaigns right now, including my candidate's campaign.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

The problem, at least in NH, being, that they know and hate him.

Granted, they hate Guiliani worse, but they hate him. NH ain't all that about MA, anyway, although it all looks the same to folks in your neck of the woods. It's more like NYC and Upstate.

[hectorberlioz]

I guess he'll just have to go back and govern another state and run again eight years down the line...

BUT! Michigan. Last stand...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Romney is coming across as glib and insincere, particularly in NH. His ads have been mean, too, and they don't hold with that. But NH isn't exactly representative, kwim? It's a shame for the whole process that this has gotten to be such a marathon.

[hectorberlioz]

None of his ads are mean. They are disingenuous, that's obvious.

But Romney is getting a flogging for it only because he's the only one is doing it, not because they are "mean". McCain can go back to sucking his thumb, because frankly if Romney's ads are "mean", then McCain can't take the heat.

Social issues? Rick Santorum--probably the most conservative voice in the senate in recent times, now retired---said that McCain shied away from voting on abortion and gay marriage. He says he has his problems with Romney as well, but says he's "more conservative than McCain".

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Rick Santorum was a grandstanding lunatic. "Retired" my Aunt Jane...they whupped his a...

I understand why McCain doesn't have the credentials that the social conservatives like. Arizona is not that socially conservative, to start with. But I can't believe social conservatives would vote for the patron of Gay marriage, I just can't.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I guess he'll just have to go back and govern another state and run again eight years down the line...

As long as it isn't Massachusetts again, I'm fine.

[The Gaffer]

Quick questions re: process.

Technically, the candidate is chosen at the Convention, at the end of the process, yes? Do these work the same way as presidential conventions, where all of the votes for a state are given to the winner in that state, no matter how close the contest was in that state? And does each state get a number of votes in proportion to their population, as with the presidential convention?

Looks like Hillary is doing a Mark Twain: rumours of her death are greatly exaggerated...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Quick questions re: process.

Technically, the candidate is chosen at the Convention, at the end of the process, yes? Do these work the same way as presidential conventions, where all of the votes for a state are given to the winner in that state, no matter how close the contest was in that state? And does each state get a number of votes in proportion to their population, as with the presidential convention?

Looks like Hillary is doing a Mark Twain: rumours of her death are greatly exaggerated...

Gotta love this system. The answer is, None, Both, all of the above.

The US is a federation, and the parties even more so. So the answer varies both by state and by party. Some states are proportional for Dems and winner-take-all for Republicans, for example. Some states elect candidates, and some delegates. And that's before all the 'open", "closed" business and the Iowa caucus folderol. Here's a brief overview. http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/politi...ateprocess.htm

Technically, of course, the Presidential election doesn't elect anyone but an elector, anyway. That's how you get a disparity between the popular and electoral vote. It was a much simpler system with 13 states and no political parties. And, for those of you who don't know, the habit of running a presidential and vice-presidential candidate is fairly recent, the electoral college used to give the VP spot to the runner up in the presidential voting, even when he was from another party. The practice of a presidential candidate naming his OWN VP candidate is even more recent...used to be selected by the delegates at the convention. Of course, Dick Cheney is completely illegal, because there's a Constitutional protection that forbids 2 residents of the same state to serve as President and VP, but he fraudulently reregistered his address to circumvent that.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Rick Santorum was a grandstanding lunatic. "Retired" my Aunt Jane...they whupped his a...

That wasn't the point...the point is, Santorum--whom conservatives respect--does not think McCain is "even a moderate".

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That wasn't the point...the point is, Santorum--whom conservatives respect--does not think McCain is "even a moderate".

Santorum believes "intelligent design' is science. Santorum believes he's entitled to scalp a small school district to pay for his kids' education. Santorum can't tell the difference between "the house we have tenants in in Pennsylvania" and "the big house we live in" when he's talking about his "residence."

Conservatives who "respect" him must be idiots, too.

[hectorberlioz]

Ok, I get it. You're a raving Democrat.